ShareThis Page
Chelsea Manning refusing to testify at grand jury probing WikiLeaks | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Chelsea Manning refusing to testify at grand jury probing WikiLeaks

Associated Press
1148141_web1_1148141-1b65a7b4d57445b1a5de848af0855b83
AP
In this May 2, 2018, file photo, Chelsea Manning attends a discussion at the media convention “Republica” in Berlin. Former Army intelligence analyst Manning has been released from a northern Virginia jail after a two-month stay for refusing to testify to a grand jury. Manning was released Thursday, May 9, 2019, from the Alexandria jail after 62 days of confinement on civil contempt charges after she refused to answer questions to a federal grand jury investigating WikiLeaks.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning says she’ll refuse to testify on Thursday before a second grand jury investigating WikiLeaks.

But if a judge finds her in contempt of court again, she could wind up back in jail.

Manning spent seven years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. She walked free in May 2017 after President Barack Obama commuted her 35-year sentence.

Recently, she spent two months in jail for refusing to answer one grand jury’s questions about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Now, a second grand jury has subpoenaed her.

She told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday that she has nothing more to offer than what she’s already provided in her own case.

Categories: News | Top Stories | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.